Tafsir of Qaf 50:29

Translation of Mafatih al-Ghayb (Al-Razi) - Surah Qaf, Verse 29

Verse 29: {My word is not subject to change, nor am I unjust to My servants.}

This phrase allows for two main interpretations:

Interpretation 1: The modifier (لدى) relates to the word (القول). This means: "The word that is with Me is not changed."

Under this interpretation, there are several possibilities for what "the Word" (القول) refers to:

1. The Decree of Punishment: When they requested that the command (ألقيا - "Cast them both [into Hell]") be changed after their excuses (as mentioned in verse 24), Allah responded: "This Word (ما يبدل القول لدي) is not changed." Similarly, the decree, "Enter the gates of Hell" (Q 39:72), has no alteration.
2. The Decree of Warning: It refers to the established truth: "But the word from Me is established: 'I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together'" (Q 32:13). This statement is immutable.
3. The Inevitability of Divine Threats: There is no breaking of Allah's promise regarding threats (إيعاد), just as there is no breaking of His promise regarding rewards. This refutes the Murji'ah sect, who claimed that the threats mentioned in the Qur'an are merely for intimidation and that Allah will not actually enact them, arguing that a generous being fulfills promises but breaks threats, offering pardon instead.
4. The Prior Judgment of Fate: The Word that was previously spoken—that this person is wretched and that person is blessed—when the servants were created. Allah decreed, "This one is wretched and will do the deeds of the wretched, and this one is pious and will do the deeds of the pious." That Word is unchangeable by any striving; happiness comes only through God's success (توفيق).

Interpretation 2: The modifier (لدى) relates to the verb (ما يبدل). This means: "No changing occurs with Me."

Under this interpretation, there are also several possibilities:

1. No Falsehood is Uttered Before Me: I do not lie or fabricate before Me. I know who transgressed (طغى) and who was led astray (أطغى), and who was the most rebellious (أطغى). Therefore, your claim, "My Satan led me astray," or Satan's claim, "Our Lord, I did not lead him astray" (Q 27:27), is useless.
2. The Time for Change Has Passed: This refers to the command, "Go back, and seek light!" (Q 57:13). It is as if Allah is saying: If you had wanted Me not to say, "Cast them both [into Hell] into severe torment," you should have changed this [your disbelief] before standing before Me by changing disbelief into faith. But now, "My word is not subject to change," just as we explained regarding His statement, "Do not dispute in My presence" (Q 28:28)—meaning your dispute should have occurred earlier, when I said, "Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you, so take him as an enemy" (Q 35:6).
3. No Exchange of Disbelief for Faith: It means disbelief will not be exchanged for faith before Me, as faith at the point of despair is unacceptable. Thus, your saying, "Our Lord, our God," is of no benefit. Whoever speaks a word of disbelief will not be helped by saying, "Our Lord, we did not associate partners," or "Our Lord, we believed."

The Significance of ما (Mā) vs. لا (Lā) in Negation:

The phrase ما يبدل القول (Mā yubaddalu al-qawl) indicates a negation of the present state (نفي الحال). When ما enters a present tense verb, it negates the action now. If one asks, "What will you do tomorrow?" the answer "I will do nothing" (ما أفعل شيئاً) implies negation in the present. If the question is about the future, one might say لن يفعل (will not do) for stronger future negation.

• Difference between لا and ما: لا is more indicative of negation because it is primarily established for negation (like prohibition, النهي). ما has other meanings (e.g., it can be a noun), so its negation is not absolute (غير متمحضة للنفي). Negation with ما in the present does not necessarily negate the future; one might say, "He is not doing it now, but he will, God willing." Thus, ما is used for negation where the negation is not absolute (i.e., where affirmation in the future is possible).
• Counter-argument and Resolution: One might argue that لا negates the future while ما affirms the present. This is incorrect. One cannot say, "Zayd will not do [it], but he is doing it now." However, one can say, "Zayd will not do [it] tomorrow, but he is doing it now," because specifying "tomorrow" limits the scope of لا to a part of the future. In our case (ما يفعل), we negate the present and affirm the future without specifying a time frame, unlike the example where we said سيفعل (he will do) and ما يفعل (he is not doing).

This statement is consistent with both interpretations above:

1. If لدى relates to the Word (Interpretation 1): Since the decree of casting them into Hell (Q 24) and the decree of entering Hell (Q 39:72) are immutable, it is clear that Allah is not unjust (ظلام) to His servants by applying these decrees to the deserving ones (the obstinate disbelievers).
2. If لدى relates to the Verb (Interpretation 2): Since the time for changing the word (i.e., accepting faith) has passed, and Allah warned them beforehand, sent messengers, and clarified the paths, it is not injustice (ظلم) to punish them now.

Linguistic Points (مباحث لفظية)

1. The use of the preposition باء (Bā') in بظلام:

The preposition باء is used in the predicate of ما (and ليس) when the connection of the verb/negation to the predicate is not overtly apparent.

• It is not used when the connection is extremely obvious (e.g., one does not say ضربت بزيد [I hit by Zayd] instead of ضربت زيداً).
• It is used or omitted when the connection is intermediate (e.g., شكرته or شكرت له).

For ما (and ليس), the predicate (خبر) is likened to the object (مفعول به). While the attachment of past tense pronominal suffixes (تاء، نون) to لست، لسنا suggests verbal nature, the future forms (يكون، تكون) reveal that ليس and ما are not fully explicit verbs. Therefore, their connection to the predicate is not maximally apparent, allowing for the use of باء (e.g., ليس زيد جاهلاً or ليس زيد بجاهل). This is analogous to verbs that can be transitive directly or via باء (e.g., مسحته or مسحت به).

2. Question on the Obligation of باء with ما:

If كان (Kāna) is a fully explicit verb, باء is forbidden in its predicate (e.g., كان زيد خارجاً not خارجاً بـ). If ليس is partially verbal (due to suffixes like لست), the باء is optional. Since ما is not verbal in any sense, why is the باء sometimes omitted (e.g., ما هذا بشراً vs. ما هذا بشر)? It should perhaps always require باء, like verbs that require a preposition to take an object (e.g., ذهب زيد requires بـ to take an object).

• Resolution: The majority usage, especially in the Qur'an, involves using باء with the predicate of ما (e.g., وما أنت بهادى (Q 27:81), وما أنا بظلام). The omission is permissible because ما is semantically similar to ليس (both negate the present state), which allows omission. However, ما differs from ليس in its morphological features (lack of suffixes), which suggests obligation (وجوب). The semantic similarity (negating the present) is stronger than the morphological difference, thus permitting omission. Furthermore, the word order flexibility of كان (which can be delayed) is not shared by ليس or ما, suggesting ما and ليس are closer in structure than كان. In the dialect of Banu Tamim, the باء is often obligatory after ما when its predicate is nominal.

3. The use of the preposition لـ (Lām) in للعبيد:

The لام confirms the sense of attribution (إضافة). In true attribution (e.g., غلام زيد), the noun takes tanwīn if separated from the mudāf ilayh. In verbal noun attribution (e.g., ضارب زيد), where the noun acts like a verb, the connection is weaker. Since the active participle (اسم الفاعل) is weaker than the verb, its connection to the object is weaker, allowing for the use of لـ (e.g., ضارب لزيد), similar to how مسحت به is used alongside مسحته. This is supported by verses where the object is fronted, like إن كنتم للرؤيا تعبرون (Q 12:43).

Semantic Points (مباحث معنوية)

1. The meaning of ظلام (Zallām - Excessive Oppressor):

ظلام is an intensive form of ظالم (oppressor). If someone says, "He is a liar" (كذاب), it implies frequent lying, but it does not negate occasional lying. If Allah says, وما أنا بظلام (I am not an excessive oppressor), does this imply He is not an oppressor at all?

• Answer 1 (Attribution): ظلام means "possessor of injustice" (ذي ظلم). The لام in للعبيد confirms this attribution. (This view is attributed to Imam Zayn al-Din).
• Answer 2 (Hypothetical Scenario - Al-Zamakhshari): It is a hypothetical statement. Allah is saying: If I were to oppress My weak servants—who are deserving of mercy—that would constitute the ultimate injustice. Since I am far from that, negating the excessive oppression implies negating the basic oppression. This is supported by specifying "servants" (للعبيد), implying that even on the Day when Hell is full and cries out, "Is there any more?" (next verse), despite the immense number being cast in, I will not be characterized by excessive injustice due to the sheer volume of punishment.
  • The negation is qualified by time (يوم نقول) and by object (للعبيد). This qualification does not negate injustice at other times or toward others. The qualification serves to make the statement more readily believable (closer to confirmation).
• Answer 3 (Scope of Negation): This shows that specifying a negation does not negate the opposite. He negated being an excessive oppressor (ظلام), which does not negate being an oppressor (ظالم). He negated being an excessive oppressor to the servants, which does not negate being an excessive oppressor to others. This is like saying of a human, "Some of them wrong themselves" (Q 35:32).

2. Difference in Usage: بظلام للعبيد (without addition) vs. بهادى العمى (with addition):

Why is it وما أنا بظلام للعبيد (without adding لـ to ظلام), but وما أنت بهادى العمى (Q 27:81) and وما أنت بمسمع من فى القبور (Q 35:22) use addition?

• Sometimes a statement is initially general, then specified without the intent of limiting the scope. For example, one might say, "So-and-so gives and withholds" (general intent), but if asked whom, they reply, "Zayd and Amr" (specific).
• In وما أنا بظلام, if the statement stopped there, it would imply generality (negating all injustice). The addition of للعبيد is not to limit the non-injustice only to them, but because they are the closest potential subjects of injustice from Allah.
• For the Prophet (PBUH), he was a guide (هادياً) in essence. The verse intends to negate a specific type of guidance—guiding the blind away from their error. Thus, He said بهادى العمى (guiding the blind), not simply بهاد (a guide). This is similar to أليس الله بكاف عبده (Q 39:36).

3. The Meaning of "Servants" (العبيد):

• Possibility 1: Disbelievers. As in, "Woe to the servants! No messenger came to them" (Q 36:30). Meaning: I will punish them, and I will not be an oppressor to them (by punishing them unjustly).
• Possibility 2: Believers. If Allah were to change His word and show mercy to the disbeliever, He would be unjust to His believing servants, because He restricted them from desires for the sake of this Day. If the one who did not obey received the same reward as the believer, the believer's faith and worship would be pointless. This aligns with verses stating the non-equality of the inhabitants of Hell and Paradise (Q 59:20) and those who know versus those who do not know (Q 39:9).
• Possibility 3: General Application. The term includes all people.